Loading...
09-22-14 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, September 22, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes September 8, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to page 6 and stated that the motion made for the Sunnyridge Woods subdivision proposal should include the condition regarding shifting the west property on Lot 3, 5 feet further to the west. Baker referred to page 5 and stated that he did not suggest tabling the Sunnyridge Woods proposal. He said Chair Kluchka asked him if he was suggesting tabling the proposal, but he said no, he would be voting against the proposal due to the pending moratorium discussion by City Council. Waldhauser referred to the discussion regarding the Lock Up storage business and asked that her comment be clarified to state that there was an opportunity to rezone that property, however, the utility and access issues with this property would have been very expensive for the City to address. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 8, 2014, minutes with the above noted corrections. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan Review— Trevilla Complex, PUD #72, Amendment#2 Applicant: Albert Miller Address: 7475 Country Club Drive Purpose: To convert the vacant 60-unit senior living facility into a 111-unit assisted living and memory care facility. Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to expand the existing vacant senior living facility from 60 units to 110 units, not 111 units as stated in the application materials. He stated that the proposed expansion includes two and three story additions with secure gardens/patios on the north and east ends of the existing building. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 2 Zimmerman discussed the parking requirements and stated that there are currently 35 parking spaces on the property. He explained that 23 spaces are required and 28 spaces are being proposed. He stated that the applicant is also proposing additional screening for the single family home to the northeast and the multi-family buildings to the south. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and discussed how the proposal compares to the underlying zoning district requirements. He stated that the side yard setback along the west will be 12.5 feet instead of 50 feet with a 25 foot landscaped buffer, however it will be no closer to the west side property line than the current building. He stated that the setback along the south property line will be 25 feet rather than 33 feet and the front yard setback will be 31 feet rather than 35 feet which is consistent with the neighboring building. He stated that the new parking lot will be 17 feet from the side lot line rather than providing a 25 foot landscaped butter, and the lot coverage will be 27% rather than the 25% allowed in the Institutional zoning district. Segelbaum asked if the proposed amount of impervious surface changed between the Preliminary PUD review and the Final PUD review. Zimmerman stated that the amount of impervious surface increased slightly from the Preliminary Plan, but the applicant has stated that they are going to use pervious pavers wherever they can. Link Wilson, Kaas Wilson architects, discussed the amount of impervious surface on the site and stated that there will be an underground infiltration system installed. He referred to the number of proposed units and explained that the number of units has been reduced in order to have larger common areas in the building. Cera asked about the location of snow storage on the property. Wilson stated that there is some space on the east side of the property that can be used for snow storage. Otherwise, if there is a significant amount of snow they may have to haul it off site. Waldhauser asked Wilson to explain how the surface water will drain off the site. Wilson said the water flows from north to southeast on the site. He said they will be improving the rate control, and will be doing some terracing of the slope on the neighboring property and adding catch basins as well. Segelbaum noted that during the Preliminary PUD review it was mentioned that a portion of the residents would be eligible for subsidies. He asked if that has changed. Wilson said that has not changed. Baker asked Wilson if anything has changed in relation to the existing house to the north. Wilson said no, and added that he thinks they'll be able solve some of the erosion issues the neighboring property has been having. Blum asked Wilson to explain how they will prevent patient walkaways. Wilson said it is a misnomer that people can just walk away. He explained that the memory care units will be on the second and third floors with their own screened-in deck area. He said there is also Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 3 door security and a wrist band system so staff will know the residents whereabouts at all times. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said it is exciting to have a facility like this in Golden Valley and the applicant has done a good job of making it fit. Cera agreed and said he is glad a vacant facility will be used. Segelbaum agreed and commended the applicant for being a good neighbor. Kluchka said he is comfortable with the proposed snow storage areas and pervious surface techniques being proposed on the site. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for Trevilla Complex, PUD #72, Amendment #2, subject to the following findings and conditions: Findin s: 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by Kass Wilson architects and submitted with the application on August 21, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated September 15, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated September 15, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 5. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 4 3. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan — Marie's Woods — 720Q and 7218 Harold Avenue — PU-119 Applicant: Peter Knaeble Address: 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue Purpose: To allow for the reconfiguration of the two existing single family properties into a new five-lot single family development Zimmerman explained the applicant's proposal to develop five single homes on two existing single family lots totaling 1.6 acres. He stated that the density would be 3.125 units per acre and that the R-2 zoning district allows up to 8 units per acre. He noted that all five proposed new homes would have direct access onto Harold Avenue and that the applicant is proposing a tree conservation easement area on the back (north) half of the properties. Zimmerman discussed how this PUD proposal varies from the R-2 zoning district requirements. He stated that the lot width requirement in the R-2 zoning district is 100 feet. Four of the proposed lots would be 42 feet wide and one lot would be 55.2 feet wide. He stated that the side yard setback requirement in the R-2 zoning district is 15 feet. The applicant is proposing a 5 foot setback on the west side, and an 8 foot setback on the east side of each lot. Zimmerman added that there is also a requirement in the PUD section of the Zoning Code not being met, which states that no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line abutting a single family zoning district. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending denial of the PUD proposal because it does not meet the necessary findings to approve a PUD. Specifically, it does not achieve a high quality of site planning, it fails to preserve high quality features, it does not demonstrate efficient use of land, and it does not meet the PUD Intent and Purpose provision. Kluchka referred to the PUD language stating that no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line and asked if the intent was not to have a building next to an R-1 property. Zimmerman stated that the City can't offer flexibility from the PUD requirements like it can from the underlying zoning cade requirements. Segelbaum said it is an interpretation issue. He noted that the language says that no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line abutting a single family zoning district. In this case the subject property abuts an R-2 zoning district. Zimmerman agreed that an interpretation is needed and added that both single family homes and twin homes are allowed in the R-2 zoning district. Segelbaum asked if it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer an interpretation. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked about the distance between the existing home at 7236 Harold Avenue and the proposed new house on Lot 1. Zimmerman said there would be approximately 15 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 5 feet between the existing house (7236 Harold Avenue) and the proposed new house on Lot 1. Segelbaum referred to the site plan and noted the staggered front yard setback lines. He asked if the applicant will have control over where the houses are placed on the lots, or if the City would just be approving a building envelope area. Zimmerman stated that the PUD Permit could say where the building envelopes can be located. Segelbaum asked if a cul-de-sac plan is viable. Zimmerman said staff has seen plans for a cul-de-sac with seven or eight homes. He said there is some concern about the neighbors objecting to the density and there has been some push-back from the applicant about the cost of the cul-de-sac plan, but a cul-de-sac would be staff's preference. Pete Knaeble, Applicant, said he has spent months trying to appropriately develop this site. He handed out drawings of other options he has proposed that were not looked at favorably by the City Council. He referred to the cul-de-sac option, and said he likes the idea of more density, but there are some significant issues that are not appropriate for this site, and the neighbors are adamant about not wanting a cul-de-sac. He added that the cul-de-sac option would also place the homes closer to Highway 55. He said there will be five unique, custom built homes and he already has three interested families who like the cluster of trees in the back, and the park in the front. He said he disagrees with staff comments especially that the proposal does not meet the findings necessary to approve a PUD. He said this type of project is a perfect use for a PUD and the neighbors will support this proposal because of the high home values. Knaeble referred to staff's concern about five curb cuts on Harold Avenue and said he would be able to build two twin homes on this property without any approvals, which tells him that he is entitled to four curb cuts. He is asking for one more curb cut which should not be an issue. Knaeble referred to the wooded area along Highway 55 on the north part of these properties and said he thinks it is an important buffer to this neighborhood that is being downplayed and discouraged. He added that he thinks this green area along Highway 55 should be protected from Glenwood Avenue to Winnetka Avenue because the green space is critical. He stated that these trees are not just low quality trees, there are some high quality trees that have a high value and are an important part of this proposal. He said 70% of the trees will remain and 60% of the trees would be in the proposed tree conservation easement area. Knaeble stated that another issue with the cul-de-sac would be the amount of impervious surface. He said he is proposing 16% impervious surface coverage, and the cul-de-sac would be double that amount. He stated that the City Engineer has said there are downstream flooding issues and he thinks adding additional impervious surface is not a correct response to that issue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 6 Knaeble referred to staff's comment about the majority of the view of the proposed new homes from the street would be garage doors. He disagreed with that and showed the Commissioners drawings of possible types of homes that could be built and reiterated that the homes will be custom designed. Knaeble referred to the findings used to approve a PUD and said he disagrees with staff stating that he doesn't meet four of them. He said he thinks this is a unique project that does have a high quality site plan that preserves and protects site features by placing half of the property in an easement area, and protects wetland areas and steep slopes. He said he is shocked by staff's recommendation and he doesn't know what else he could do above and beyond what he is proposing. He stated that staff needs to remember the scenic view that will be protected along Highway 55. Knaeble referred to the finding regarding the efficient use of land and said the way he designed this proposal couldn't be any more efficient because he is using existing streets and utilities. He said from his perspective, he is being efficient because a cul-de-sac would be $250,000 and it is not necessary to spend that money for a cul-de-sac that the City would have to own and maintain forever. Segelbaum asked Knaeble to comment on the PUD language which states that no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line. Knaeble said he spoke with his attorney and other planners and engineers, and they all think that language pertains to taller buildings being placed next to single family residential properties. He said he thinks that part of the PUD language is not appropriate for this development. Segelbaum asked Knaeble about the distance between the houses. Knaeble said the distance varies from 13 to 20 feet. Segelbaum asked Knaeble to discuss other reasons he has discounted the cul-de-sac option. Knaeble said he wants to redevelop this property, and he may end up doing the cul-de-sac option, but he doesn't think it's appropriate in this case. He said the lot sizes wouldn't meet the standard in the R-1 zoning district, a cul-de-sac would double the amount of impervious surface, and would not be a good use of this site. He added that if Highway 55 wasn't an issue he would agree with the cul-de-sac option, but the homes won't be as valuable if they are placed closer to Highway 55 so he thinks his current proposal is better. Cera asked Knaeble if he has given any thought to acquiring additional lots. Knaeble said yes. He said the neighbors to the east are not in a position to sell, and he hasn't pursued the neighbor to the west. He reiterated that he thinks small, single family lots are the best way to develop this area, not multiple cul-de-sacs that remove the buffer of trees along Highway 55. Waldhauser asked Knaeble why the neighbors have said they don't like the cul-de-sac option. Knaeble said that the average value of the homes would be significantly lower with seven lots on a cul-de-sac, closer to Highway 55, than five smaller single family lots. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 7 Waldhauser asked about the size of the proposed homes. Knaeble said they would be approximately 2,000 to 2,400 square feet in size. Cera asked Knaeble if he has considered building a shorter cul-de-sac, further away from Highway 55. Knaeble said yes, but from a cost and design point of view, it is more efficient and better for the environment to develop five lots. Baker noted that Knaeble said he would not be able to sell the proposed homes because they would be closer to Highway 55, but then he said he wouldn't consider fewer homes in a shorter cul-de-sac format that would place the homes further away from Highway 55. Knaeble said the cul-de-sac would still have to be built, and he doesn't think that is a good trade off. He questioned building a new cul-de-sac to serve five homes when the infrastructure already exists on Harold Avenue. Baker stated that of the nine homes on the north side of Harold Avenue, only one of them is close to Highway 55 which tells him there is a desire to build away from Highway 55. Knaeble agreed and added that there is also a desire to save trees, and to build the homes closer to the park. Baker said there appears to be little market for homes close to Highway 55, so the idea of a tree conservation easement is not so much an amenity, as it is a necessity to make the proposed development marketable. Knaeble reiterated that the view of the trees along Highway 55 is important and should not be downplayed. Kluchka asked who currently owns the properties in this proposal. Knaeble said he owns the lot on the west at 7218 Harold Avenue and Fred Gross owns the lot on the east at 7200 Harold Avenue. Kluchka asked Knaeble if the City is asking him to develop these properties. Knaeble said no. Kluchka stated that nobody is asking for these properties to be redeveloped except for the people who own them. Knaeble said he doesn't think that's true because the City rezoned these properties to R-2 to encourage higher density and additional housing in this area. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, said nobody in the neighborhood wants the cul-de- sac option. He said the ideal plan would be to tear down the two existing homes and build two new homes, but the properties are zoned R-2 and the City wants higher density. He said the houses will be very close together, but a good architect can make it look nice. He said he loves the existing buffer of trees on these properties and if they are cut down he will be able to see and hear every car on Highway 55. He said the proposed plan isn't perfect, but he supports it. Segelbaum asked Kueny if he is concerned about the parking situation in the neighborhood with the proposed additional curb cuts and the number of events that are held at Lions Park. Kueny said no. He stated that there are four softball tournaments a year and two or three soccer tournaments a year, but the parking is not a problem by his end of the park. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 8 Perry Thom, 320 Louisiana Avenue North, said he wouldn't be concerned about the parking issues with the addition of five driveways because parking isn't allowed on the north side of Harold Avenue so nothing would be affected. He said he really appreciates Knaeble's efforts to include the neighbors in this proposal. He said he loves the neighborhood and there is an opportunity to have a real gem here. He said homes in a cul-de-sac would be less than desirable. He said they would not be high valued homes and he sees that as nothing but a drag on the neighborhood, and a transient opportunity. He said the City forcing the community to take homes they don't want isn't appropriate and he doesn't appreciate the cul-de-sac idea because it will eliminate almost all of the trees and lower property values. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, said he has been renting out this property for the last 13 years. He said he is ambivalent about selling his house because if this proposal doesn't happen he will just continue to rent out the house. He said the irony of this whole thing is that the best time to approve a proposal is when you have a good proposal, even though it doesn't meet all of the requirements. He said there isn't one cottonwood tree on these properties and thinks this would be a wonderful project. Lynn Schneider, 310 Louisiana Avenue North, said she loves the wetland area and the buffer of the trees, and she thinks it's pretty when she sees trees on Highway 55. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, stated that the last proposal for this site was recommended for approval by staff but was denied unanimously by the Planning Commission, and now this proposal is being recommended for denial by staff. He said to look at the viability of the project and approve it. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Cera said he thinks the Planning Commission's concerns are the width of the lots and the setbacks. He asked Knaeble if he had considered four lots instead of five. Knaeble said he did consider four lots, but he thinks five lots fit, are appropriate, and maximize the density. Cera asked if four lots would allow for larger setbacks. Knaeble said he doesn't think there is a setback issue. He said his proposal is not unlike the recent development on Rhode Island Avenue just down the street. Those homes are 15 feet apart, and his proposed homes would be 13 feet apart. Kluchka asked the Commissioners how they felt about four lots, versus five lots. Baker said he would like to hear about the applicant's other options. Segelbaum said this is the option the applicant prefers, and he would like to focus on this option in front of them. Waldhauser said she believes part of the reason the City is trying to encourage higher density is for affordability, not just for increased density. She said it concerns her that when the City has these opportunities to increase density they continue to keep trying to maintain the same size and the same price point for new homes as the homes in the surrounding neighborhood. She said she can understand why the developer and the neighbors don't want that, but it flies in the face of the goal of increasing density. She Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 9 said she would like to have a conversation as a City, and not just as each new development comes up. Baker agreed and said that is why he wants to see the other options. He said the City needs other affordable options. Segelbaum said he doesn't want to discourage the conversation, he just wants to explore the options amongst the Commission, not necessarily with the applicant, because the applicant has submitted what he wants to do. Kluchka said unless there is an economic incentive from the City, more affordable houses aren't going to be built. Baker said affordable housing has many euphemisms. He said he is not talking about low income, subsidized housing, just something other than $500,000 homes. Kluchka said the economic reality is that a house can't be torn down and replaced with a new $200,000 house and still be profitable to a developer. He added that the expectation of replacing homes with lower priced homes is not the right expectation to have. Cera asked about the price of the recently constructed homes on Rhode Island Avenue. Zimmerman said he thinks they were approximately $350,000 to $400,000. (Clarification after the fact, the homes referred to on Rhode Island Avenue sold for $400,000 to $450,000.) Kluchka asked about the width of lots and the setbacks in the Laurel Ponds proposal on Pennsylvania Avenue. Zimmerman said the lots in that proposal are 36 feet wide with 10 feet of separation between the houses. Cera stated that the Laurel Ponds proposal is a transitional site and that this proposal is in the middle of a single family residential neighborhood. Waldhauser said she understands the economic difficulties with the cul-de-sac, but it would seem much more appealing to her to have a couple of cul-de-sac developments than row housing. Baker said he is a fan of trees, and he believes they are a buffer for the neighborhood, but he feels that saving the trees isn't driving the decision to build the houses further away from Highway 55, there just isn't a desire to build the houses right next to the highway. Kluchka agreed and added that asking the City to maintain a tree conservation area isn't viable when the houses would more than likely be built further away from Highway 55 anyway. Zimmerman added that the City isn't saying that the trees aren't important or should be removed. The City just doesn't want to be responsible for the conservation easement when private covenants could accomplish the same goal. Kluchka asked the Commissioners how to interpret the language that states no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line. Waldhauser said she feels a residential PUD is very different from other types of PUDs. She questioned what should regulate height versus setback for this property because in the R-1 district there is a tie between the height and the setback so she is not sure what to use as a guideline in this case. Kluchka said there was two years of research and debate on correct setbacks and massing management, and the character of neighborhoods. He said he'd rather see a high quality development of the area as a whole, and he is not sure this proposal fits. Baker agreed and said having homes that are 13 feet apart is dramatically different from Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 10 what is there now. Kluchka said he thinks the PUD language regarding height and setbacks is relevant. Segelbaum said he thinks the height/setback language was meant for a larger development PUD next to a single family home. He said this isn't a large development, but it is right up next to a single family home. Baker said they need to think about ways to encourage overlay districts to make this type of development more possible, but this proposal doesn't fit today's situation. Kluchka questioned if the City would rather have this design, or a twin home design as intended in the R-2 zoning district. Baker said a twin home might be a more efficient use of the land. Kluchka agreed. Waldhauser stated that developers have said it is much more difficult to market a twin home than a small house on a small lot. Segelbaum said he's not sure what type of development would fit here. He said it is clear the neighbors don't want a cul-de-sac, but that doesn't mean there aren't other possible uses, including not developing it at all. Kluchka questioned if this proposal rises to the level of a PUD in terms of allowing flexibility, but also getting something for the City in return. He said for him, this proposal does not rise to that level and he would rather see the property used as intended for twin homes, or maybe four single family homes instead of five. Cera agreed that the development doesn't feel complete and maybe if the proposal included more properties he might feel differently. Waldhauser said she doesn't think that the City can ask a developer to wait until every property is for sale. Baker said that is why he is interested in overlay districts. He said in its current context, this proposal is hard to accept. Blum referred to the quality of site planning and design as required by the PUD ordinance and noted that the applicant has said that language is subjective. He said he thinks one way that could be more objective, is by comparing the proposal to other homes in the area. He said that this proposal doesn't rise to the same level of quality as other homes near the park. He added that this proposal also achieves no higher density, or at least the level of density the City would like to see. Kluchka summarized some of the potential findings including: the Planning Commission's interpretation relative to this proposal, is that Subdivision 3 in the PUD ordinance does not offer flexibility in this instance, the appropriateness of the setbacks for the planned height in an R-2 zoning district, and the proposed easement on the east side of the property needs to be wider than proposed. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of Preliminary PUD Plan for PUD #119, Marie's Woods based on the following findings: 1. The PUD plan does not achieve a higher quality of site planning and design as it simply replaces two existing single family homes with five new single family homes on narrower lots. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 11 2. The PUD plan does not meet the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and would likely result in conflict with at least one PUD ordinance provision of minimum required side yard setbacks for principal buildings. Also, the propased easement on the east side of the property should be 25 feet in width as opposed to 20 feet as proposed. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman reparted on the September 16 City Council meeting where the Council voted to approve a six-month moratorium on singls family residential subdivisions and PUDs with a single family residential component. Waldhauser reported on a recent Bottineau meeting she attended. 5. �ther Business • Council Liaison Report 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm, arles D. Segelbaurn, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant